New Delhi: The 31-member Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare recently presented a report which highlighted the moralistic and unrealistic aspect of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016.

The committee, headed by Samajwadi Party MP Ram Gopal Yadav debated on major gaps in the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill.

The report began by stating the lack of regulation as the main cause of exploitation. Permitting women to provide reproductive labour for free to another person but preventing them from being paid for their reproductive labour is grossly unfair and arbitrary, the report said.

Opposing the altruistic surrogacy model, Dr Rishma Pai, President, Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI), said, “All of us believed that altruistic surrogacy is not a practical solution as it expects a woman, whether she is a relative or otherwise, to go through the whole process for absolutely nothing. Everybody else involved is earning, so why should the surrogate not be compensated. We are very happy with the term “compensated surrogacy”. The surrogate should get the compensation of the effort and the whole hardship that she has gone through.”

Dr Nandita Palshetkar, Medical Director, Bloom IVF Group, said, “I think it is fair enough to compensate the woman for the loss of work hours in those nine months. After all, everyone else involved in the process is getting something.”

The parliamentary committee also recommended the inclusion of live-in couples, divorced women and widows in the ambit of persons who can avail surrogacy.

“The surrogacy law has to be liberal and forward looking. The present time is very different and in today’s time live-in couples are a reality. The single parents, older women, divorced may want to have a child and to say that it is illegal just because you don’t have a marriage certificate is not fair. It is like taking away the women’s reproductive right. Compared to the number of live-in couples, those requiring surrogacy will be a miniscule number and in keeping with the modern day India we should include them and give them equal rights,” said Dr Pai.

Commenting on the committee’s recommendation to reduce the waiting period from five years to one year of non-conception for the couples in order to be eligible for surrogacy, Dr Pai said, “There are a significant number of women who are born without a uterus; so, this lady knows from the first day that she cannot have a baby. Why would she wait for five years? This was reasoned with the government and they have been open enough to accept it. Today women getting married in their 30’s are very common and to wait for 5 years it would mean losing the egg number, its quality and quantity.”

The committee has also recommended to the government to ensure medical insurance covers the surrogate not only during her pregnancy and delivery but also for the next six years. “The basic reason for making these recommendations is to ensure no one gets exploited in the process. It has been very clearly charted out. We are very happy to have standard compensation for the surrogates, it will all be very carefully and legally drawn out,” said Dr Pai.

"The women are being exploited and that is why the Surrogacy Bill was brought for. The committee has recommended that the money should be paid directly into the bank account of the surrogate as it is going to make the process very transparent," added Dr Palshetkar.

Social security insurance and maternity benefits are also part of the recommendations. However, the committee is not in favour of extending the option of commissioning surrogacy to foreign nationals. Though there was disagreement among the committee members on the Surrogacy Bill’s denial of eligibility to NRIs, PIOs and OCIs cardholders, who are of Indian origin.

"The whole problem started because the foreigners used to come as it was cheaper. Out of the 10 percent that are infertile, only 1 percent of those infertile women require surrogacy. Banning the whole technology is not really a great thing as we are depriving people of our own country. So, if we ban foreigners I think that is fair enough and I agree with the government here," said Dr Palshetkar.

Dr Pai added, “Let’s first look at the interest of our population in India and abroad and that itself is a large number to look after for providing the service.”

The committee and experts agreed with having a more liberal view towards surrogacy keeping the modern day India in mind.

“We feel that if fertility organisations and the government work together and listen to their ideas and to their consensus then I think the outcomes will be really balanced and appropriate for all concerned. We hope this will stay and be a part of the law. We are very happy the way it has shaped out,” Dr Rishma Pai concluded.